|
 hatever
the question, the answer these days seems to be campaign-finance
reform. Campaign-finance reform has become a mystic talisman invoked
to expel all manner of demons, both real and imaginary.
Consider USA
Today's January 25 linkage
of Enron and campaign-finance reform:
Boosted by
the Enron financial scandal, a broad overhaul of laws regulating
money in politics gained the needed backing Thursday to force
action in the House of Representatives... The company has been
one of the nation's biggest political donors: It has spread around
nearly $6 million since 1989. Backers of new limits on campaign
money said Enron succeeded in purchasing access and influence
in Washington, even though its donations did not save it from
collapse.
Six million
dollars is certainly not an inconsequential sum. But, as they say,
let's compare.
During the
1999-2000 election cycle, Enron
gave $2,441,398 to assorted politicians. During that same 1999-2000
election cycle, public-employee
unions donated $12,222,169 — or five times what Enron spent.
In fact, Enron
was outspent by the American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees alone. AFSCME's
Political Action Committee spent $2,585,074 in 1999-2000.
What these
figures demonstrate is that the more important government is to
any group of people, the more determined those people will be to
make absolutely certain that their elected officials think well
of them.
Impoverished
and scandal-ridden Puerto Rico amply demonstrated this lesson in
January. Government is the major
employer on the island. When nearly a third of the workforce
is employed in the public sector (and some mayors have been known
to have nearly two dozen relatives on the municipal payroll), a
lot of people depend on the political process for their livelihood.
Given this
fact of life, when the Statehood Party (NPP in Spanish) ruled the
island from 1993-2000, a climate of — in the words of the San
Juan Star — "embezzlement and extortion" permeated
the administration of former governor Pedro Rossello.
The New
York Times summarized the island's many scandals on January
24:
A wave of
corruption scandals that has already led to dozens of arrests
of officials and police officers crested today with the federal
indictment of 17 people, including a former education secretary
charged with stealing money for himself and for his political
party.
The indictment
accuses [Víctor Fajardo, Puerto Rico's education secretary]
of engaging in an extortion plot that siphoned federal money not
only to himself and his associates, but also to the [New Progressive
Party], which favors statehood. It says Mr. Fajardo, who is cooperating
with the authorities, asked Education Department contractors for
10 percent of each contract in kickbacks.
Puerto Rico's
answer to this scandal? Campaign-finance
reform: "Acting U.S. District Attorney Guillermo Gil and
Commonwealth Comptroller Manuel Diaz Saldaña urged the legislature
and [Commonwealth Party] Gov. Sila Calderon to reform the island's
political campaign financing system in order to put an end to corruption."
Now, let's
say all campaign contributions were banned. Does anyone really believe
that someone interested in ensuring the good will of, say, Senator
Robert Torricelli (D., N.J.), won't find some way to show him $53,700
worth of affection?
And there are
advocates
of campaign-finance reform who wish to silence taxpayers, as they
do businesses, while enhancing the power of recipients of government
largesse:
[W]hat really
is important and scandalous is that the political system itself
now is under the dominant influence of business, mainly the very
large corporations and financial interests, to the disadvantage
of other groups in society with legitimate claims on government
[emphasis added].
Americans who
wish to reduce corruption in government should concentrate on reducing
the size and importance of government — in both the United
States and Puerto Rico.
|
